tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC February 2, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
girders or cinder blocks. just another ready for use weapon in the u.s. arsenal. well, today the trump administration moved to withdraw the united states from the nuclear arms treaty with russia negotiated by ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev. doesn't the president know the dangers he's flirting with? that's "hardball" for now. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- roger stone warned by the court. >> did you ever talk to him about wikileaks? >> no. >> as the president breaks his silence. >> you never had a cons with him? >> no, i didn't. tonight, a familiar denial from the president. >> did you ever tell him or other people to get in touch with him? >> never did. >> and the mystery of roger stone, wikileaks and the "access hollywood" tape. >> when you're a star they let you do it. you can do anything. >> plus, the president pulls america out of an arms treaty with russia. >> this is not standing up to russia, this is giving them a
gift. >> the exploding controversy over the virginia governor's appearance in a racist yearbook photo. and cory booker makes it official. >> i'm cory booker and i'm running for president. >> will the new jersey senator's call to rise together move democrats? >> people in america are losing faith. that this nation will work for them. >> "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. president trump is now on the record denying that he ever told roger stone to get involved with wikileaks. the problem for the president is that his denials are worth nothing. in a wide-ranging interview with "the new york times," trump said that rod rosenstein told his lawyers that trump is not a target in the mueller investigation, but when he was asked directly by roger stone, he said this -- >> did you ever talk to -- >> no. no, i didn't. i never did.
[ inaudible question ] >> never did. >> as i listen to that audio, i could not help but recall the moment on air force one last year when the president was asked a similarly direct question about whether he knew about michael cohen's payments to stormy daniels. a question we now know the answer to is yes. as a matter of record and federal court and because the president has since admitted he knew, but before any of that, here is how trump reacted to a direct question about the hush money. does his response sound familiar. >> did you know about the $30,000 payment to stormy daniels? >> no. >> then why not -- why not -- [ inaudible ] >> do you know where she got the money? >> no, i don't know. >> never heard of it. don't know. nope. the aforementioned roger stone was back in court today. prosecutors and the special counsel told judge they are looking to begin stone's trial
in october, that's eight months from now. the judge said she thought july or august might be more appropriate, but do not rule out a fall start date. she also warned stone no to treat the criminal case against him like a book tour and added she was considering issuing a gag order to stop stone's media blitz. he repeated the nixon thing he has literally been doing since he was a teenager as seen here in his high school yearbook exclusively obtained by "all in." still a bunch of outstanding questions about stone and his role in the wikileaks e-mail dump that came on the heels of the "access hollywood" tape being made public. it has always been the case and it is highly suss spanish that just a half an hour after the worst bombshell moment of any presidential campaign in recent memory was published, wikileaks just happened to start releasing e-mails that furthered a damaging narrative about hillary clinton's campaign. e-mails that were, of course, stolen by the russian government's hackers. former stone ally jerome corsi
says mueller has evidence the timing was not a coincidence. and the roger stone indictment says someone texted him well done after the e-mails were posted. joining me now congressman ted liu of california. i think i know the answer but i will ask it anyway, congressman, do you believe the president when he denies he ever instructed roger stone to get involved with wikileaks? >> thank you, chris, for that question. donald trump has lied thousands of times on matters both great and small. i don't think we can take his denial to mean very much. i'm a former prosecutor, and what was interesting to me about the roger stone indictment is that special counsel mueller included information in there totally unnecessary to the actual charges. the sentence that a senior trump adviser was directed to contact stone, that was directed -- that was not necessary and i think it's very interesting that mueller included it because it sends a signal there that is somebody pretty high up that was in on this collusion. >> i want to play you what the
president had to say about both the special counsel investigation and the -- to get your reaction and, and if he is telling the truth and what it would mean if he is. take a listen. >> i'm not a target of -- >> oh, yeah. about which? >> the sdny investigation. because there's two, there's mueller and there's cohen. >> i don't know -- i don't know about that. that i don't know about. >> rod never said anything to you about whether you had -- you're a target at all and is what they were looking for on cohen, has that ever gone on. >> no, i don't. we didn't discuss it. >> what do you make of that? >> well, again, donald trump lies all the time so it's unclear how much stock we can put into his denials. there are multiple investigations going on, but the one with the southern district of new york, we had michael cohen under oath in a federal
court basically say that donald trump directed him to make these payments that were felony payments. and trump right now is an unindicted coconspirator in that case. so in terms of him being a target, it's pretty clear to me that in at least that case he would be a target. >> there is a question now about michael cohen, whether he's going to testify publicly at all before a house committee. he will be testifying in the house intelligence committee. there is a question about roger stone being called back because he apparently lied to congress. how important is it to you, and i've been asking everyone this, to have public hearings on these matters? >> i think public hearings are preferred and it would by very important. i'm on the house judiciary committee and we're going to start holding hearings on obstruction of justice, abuse of power as well as witness intimidation. you can't really have those hearings if you don't have key witnesses -- >> is it -- >> such as michael cohen or roger stone. >> wait. say that again. has that been made public yet,
that you're going to have hearings on obstruction of justice, witness tampering and what else? >> abuse of power. let me sort of give the background to this. before people can even talk about the question of impeachment, you would need to have a record. donald trump and his associates are presumed innocent, like anybody else in america. all we have right now really are some newspaper articles. we've got some special counsel mueller indictments. what we need to do in the house is to have people under oath give testimony. we need to subpoena documents. we create this record with these hearings and then the american people can decide later this year what do they want to do. >> so has that been made -- i mean those hearings, those have not been noticed yet, right? >> yes, that is correct. those hearings have not been noticed. the only hearings that have been noticed is next week. we're going to have matt whit e kerr, acting attorney general come in. >> let me ask you about this about whitaker.
he said just a few days ago it's wrapping up. there this consensus, there is reporting from my own news organization and others that it is wrapping up. here you see the special counsel filing today saying we need until october. we need a lot of time to go through roger stone. what do you make of it? >> it was completely inappropriate for the acting attorney general to say anything about an ongoing criminal investigation, and there are reasons you don't want to put a timeline on it because it sends all sorts of signals to potential targets or witnesses. and as a former prosecutor, i know that when you get new evidence you might have to look at new leads and it extends whatever your timeline is. so they had -- have now years of evidence from roger stone that they have to go through in terms of his communications. that's just going to take some time and that could lead to additional witnesses, additional leads. so i think this investigation is going to end any time really soon. >> congressman ted liu, thank you very much. >> thank you, chris. joining me now is former associate white house counsel to president barack obama.
and glenn concernener, former u.s. assistant donor for the district of columbia. now msnbc political analyst. suggests conspiracy charges may still be forthcoming. i want to start with you, glenn, and on roger stone. i want to play this thing that i thought was very interesting about roger stone being interviewed on trump tv about his indictment on the day of his indictment. he says something that caught a lot of people's ears. take a listen. >> when the president answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said roger stone and i never discussed this, and we never did. >> how does roger stone know what the president's answers to the interrogatories were? >> because he's colluding -- i mean, he's having conversations with the president and the president's legal team in what is arguably inappropriate because, you know, it's virtually target-to-target conversations, which are at a minimum extremely unwise and
they will come back to haunt both the president and roger stone. >> why? why is that extremely unwise? >> because, look, when we look at these indictments, the stone indictment for example, i'll tell you, chris, 30 years as a fer federal prosecutor, i've drafted more indictments than i can recall. but one thing i can tell you, when we indict one person, roger stone, we do a relatively modest indictment. so, for example, if roger was -- roger stone was indicted for a witness tampering charge, the indictment on that count would read something like, you know, on january 1st, 2019, in the district of columbia, defendant roger stone tampered with a witness by trying to interfere with the witness' truthful testimony before a proceeding. period. >> right. >> what we have the roger stone indictment, chris, is a conspiracy indictment. there is no conspiracy charge contained in it, but it sets out the misconduct and the complicity of so many other people, of corsi, of credico,
julian assange and senior trump campaign officials, including someone who directed a senior trump campaign official to try to coordinate with stone to get even more damaging wikileaks information. >> you know, ian, we're now, you know, we're at this point where the big question to me has always been that day, october 7th. the tape comes out and then the wikileaks dump happens. and, you know, i always say if you're a publisher that's a weird time to publish because you're publishing this enormous story that is going to get swallowed up and it's a friday. which october 7th was. wait until monday. why would you publish then? if you're trying to distract attention it makes a lot of sense. we now have corsi saying stone was trying to shake the tree loose and the indictment says well done afterwards. >> the map, i wish i could "pulp
fiction" draw a shape in a triangle on your show. the russian, we know they hacked into the dnc accounts and john podesta's accounts. we know they gave that to wikileaks and it came out. we know the russians spoke to the trump campaign. we know those two legs of the triangle. what the stone indictment shows is this piece. >> right. >> that the trump campaign was speaking to wikileaks. and what was the benefit, apparently, as you said, that that dump came out at a time that was strategically advantageous for the campaign to squash the story of the "access hollywood" tape. >> and there is also this question, glenn, of superseding indictments and duration that i want to ask you as well that i just asked the congressman. amidst all this talk about them wrapping up, the filings of the last two days, the motion to delay this until october, what do you think that says about where the investigation is? >> you know, it seems to me there is still a lot oh work to be done and i know there is a good bit of reporting that perhaps a report is imminent. let me tell you, there is nothing mutually exclusive about future indictments and a report being authorized to congress.
>> right. >> perhaps on a narrow issue, a more discreet issue, but to the sort of overall conspiracy, chris, i went back and i pulled out the indictment of those 12 russian military officers from july, and i keyed in on one particular -- one particular passage. it's on page 16, paragraph 44, for those of you scoring at home. and it talks about how the russian coconspirators indicted in that case also communicated with u.s. persons about the release of stolen documents, including a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the president campaign of donald trump. >> right. >> you can see the conspiracy forming -- >> right. >> -- when you read all of these indictments together. bob mueller doesn't put those in there on a whim. there is a purpose, and the purpose is to prove the conspiracy. >> i want to ask you a question, ian, about the sort of public nature or the lack of sort of public establishment of the facts i was talking to congressman ted liu about. so we had this situation --
remember the blocked calls, right? don jr. received these blocked calls right around the time he's planning the trump tower meeting. the intelligence committee ran by republicans didn't want to unmask them, which led a lot of people to think they were incriminating. there was report these were not coming from his father but family friends. there are questions whether they were involved. there is this celebratory air from the president and don jr., aha, see, there was nothing there. my response is we didn't have to play this stupid game literally a year ago. all that matters is the evidence. i don't care if it's inculpatory or exculpatory. the point is to make the evidence public, and that is something we still as of now don't have. >> there is a really interesting piece on law fair this where he found the letter of the unearthing of the called watergate roadmap that our organization worked with ben's law fair group to get out, and the was a roadmap, the gathering of evidence that the watergate
special prosecutor assembled through the grand jury. that set of evidence was sent to the house judiciary committee. ben noticed something in these documents, which was that the chairman of the house judiciary skr committee the time sent a letter to the grand jury requesting the evidence that it had for the in